The Perfect Israel
I am beginning to see a pattern in each of the prolegomena's (introductions) of the Gospel records. Perhaps, I am really just behind the curve in my Biblical-theological analysis, and if so point in the way to more rich "nuggets" from reading the Bible 'biblical-theologically' or perhaps I should say "redemptive historically".
The pattern that I am beginning to see is just how significant the prolegomena's are to understanding the Author's purpose behind his entire record. I am still wrestling with the idea of Jesus being the "true Israel" and what that really means for the rest of my scriptural understanding (Kingdom, eschatological motifs etc.). John's Gospel seems to overwhelm me at this time with the notion of Jesus being the "true and complete Israel". This wrestling is only within the first few chapters of John's Gospel too! (Note: Matthew's agenda seems to be like minded with John only in a different manner)
Take a look at how I see the prolegomena and tell me if I am justified in this thought process (atleast perhaps somewhat?) or not.
(1:14-18) The particulars within the paragraph, in light of the whole context of the prolegomena, are (1) John's return to the use of "Word" as the desriptive of Jesus from 1:1 demonstrating redemptive historical continuity with the previous "word" from God to Israel, namely the Mosaic law; (2) the emphasis on God dwelling with the disciples in the flesh, which enabled them to actually see the glory of God unlike Moses who at Sinai was not allowed to see God (Ex. 33:20 cf. Jn1:18) and (3) the superiority of the grace of God made known in Jesus Christ as juxtaposed to the grace of God disclosed through the 'incomplete' mosaic legislation (Deut. 18:18-19 cf. Deut. 30:5-10).
The heart of the pericope seems to be that John wants his readers to know that Jesus exceeds and transcends all redemptive historical expectations of the Messiah. Jesus is not just an Israelite who can figuratively be adopted by God and called a Son, rather he is the true Israelite, the Son of God from the Father, full of grace and truth (Jn. 1:14).
Jesus the True Israel and implications thereof?
The pattern that I am beginning to see is just how significant the prolegomena's are to understanding the Author's purpose behind his entire record. I am still wrestling with the idea of Jesus being the "true Israel" and what that really means for the rest of my scriptural understanding (Kingdom, eschatological motifs etc.). John's Gospel seems to overwhelm me at this time with the notion of Jesus being the "true and complete Israel". This wrestling is only within the first few chapters of John's Gospel too! (Note: Matthew's agenda seems to be like minded with John only in a different manner)
Take a look at how I see the prolegomena and tell me if I am justified in this thought process (atleast perhaps somewhat?) or not.
(1:14-18) The particulars within the paragraph, in light of the whole context of the prolegomena, are (1) John's return to the use of "Word" as the desriptive of Jesus from 1:1 demonstrating redemptive historical continuity with the previous "word" from God to Israel, namely the Mosaic law; (2) the emphasis on God dwelling with the disciples in the flesh, which enabled them to actually see the glory of God unlike Moses who at Sinai was not allowed to see God (Ex. 33:20 cf. Jn1:18) and (3) the superiority of the grace of God made known in Jesus Christ as juxtaposed to the grace of God disclosed through the 'incomplete' mosaic legislation (Deut. 18:18-19 cf. Deut. 30:5-10).
The heart of the pericope seems to be that John wants his readers to know that Jesus exceeds and transcends all redemptive historical expectations of the Messiah. Jesus is not just an Israelite who can figuratively be adopted by God and called a Son, rather he is the true Israelite, the Son of God from the Father, full of grace and truth (Jn. 1:14).
Jesus the True Israel and implications thereof?
posted by adam at 11:19 AM
4 Comments:
Makes me wonder what all the fighting is about in the Middle-East. That land obviously belongs to us.
No, but really, it brings the "literal hermeneutic discussion we were having earlier after chapel to a different level. It's not simply a matter of looking up a word in a lexicon to find its "range of meaning".
Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things. 1 Peter 1:10-12
AT, thought I wold comment based on a sermon I just listened to by Leon Morris. I think your three questions/observations are on target in a broad sense--meaning that I am not sure John specifically meant those things, but the implication is there (good old authorial intent:).
Here would be some observations based on Morris: Morris points out that "Logos" would have been understood by the Greeks as the principle of rationality that runs through the universe--I guess kind of the glue that holds things together. And the Jews would have understood "Logos" to refer to God and everything He is/says/does. So under that umbrella, for John's Jewish readers, it could refer to God's previous word (Mosaic Law) but post incarnation it would refer God's "new" word (Christ).
In the Jewish and Greek mind, the greatest shock would be that "Logos" can become flesh (that He can become what we are).
So short answer, I think (based on what Morris says) that John is not saying necessarily that Jesus is the true Israel, but rather that Jesus is the greatest revelation of God (which would not necessarily exclude the idea that Jesus is true Israel).
"The Word" by Leon Morris
Two posts ago I linked on my blog to Doug Wilson's blog and an essay regarding the thematic structure of Mathew's Gospel. Needless to say, Wilson thinks you're right. Check it out, it's a great read. Plus I think you'll like the "imputational" implications :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home